Should we compare Women Soldier integration with desegregation of African American Soldiers?

2015-02-16T00:37:36-05:00

There seems to be some frustration over the integration of Women being integrated into the Combat Arms MOS’.

I am sure there were similar fears with the desegregation process which started in the late 40’s.
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/whistlestop/study_collections/desegregation/large/

It seems very similar from what I have read so far. It must be embraced as it is already decided that it shall happen.
http://www.army.mil/article/105814/

I hope to get some friendly debate out of this and possibly deep insight on changes throughout Military history.

I have inserted two links for informational purposes.

Truman Library: Desegregation of the Armed Forces Online Research File

September 1945: Secretary of War Robert P. Patterson appoints a board of three general officers to investigate the Army's policy with respect to African-Americans and to prepare a new policy that would provide for the efficient use of African-Americans in the Army. This board is called the Gillem Board, after its chairman, General Alvan C. Gillem, Jr.

Response by CSM Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2015 12:53 AM

2015-02-16T00:53:09-05:00

I think the situation is very different.

What really needs to happen is leaders need to stop being hard headed and adapt with the changing times. All the issues SHARP, EO, etc are just responsibilities of leaders to enforce. If the standards are the same and the Soldier meets the standard, end of discussion.

Will it be a struggle and painful? Yes, but what change isn't?

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Feb 16 at 2015 1:37 AM

2015-02-16T01:37:56-05:00

SSG Private RallyPoint Member I commend you for bringing this hot topic into comparison for another great step forward for social reform. The military has led the way in civil rights. Integrating the military was done long before the Civil Rights Amendment of 1964. It isn't exactly like comparing apples and oranges, but there are great similarities between the two. In my lifetime,(as young as I am), did you know that women weren't even allowed to open bank accounts on their own? I'm not exactly ancient, but in a few (or more) decades, that is a less remembered fact. In a very short time, the "unthinkable" becomes commonplace. Who knows what kind of threads will be discussed in another 50 years regarding the military? It's practically a moot point. In 50 years, our clones will be fighting for us. I believe there is a company named Skynet doing testing as we speak....lol

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2015 1:57 AM

2015-02-16T01:57:59-05:00

SSG Private RallyPoint Member. I see no real substantive difference . . . other than it has been a rather long time coming.
Warmest Regards, Sandy

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2015 2:08 AM

2015-02-16T02:08:14-05:00

Depends from which perspective you look at it from. Ethnicity factor is TOTALLY insignificant when came to integration, and should've NEVER been one (a very sore spot in our country's segregated past history).

Gender factor however is quite a bit different. I don't discount many females out there ready to handle full grunt aspects better than male counterparts, but I've seen countless implications evolving in the process of integrating them into combat arms even on the Navy side.

They're still not allowed into hot spot specialties such as SEAL and SWCC, but I heard door has opened up for EOD, Divers, and SAR swimmers for females.

My final ruling: open the door for them into every MOS/rating/training/submarine, build some real-life evidence to work with, and then make calls based on FACTS and DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE. Equal opportunity, right?

Response by COL Charles Williams made Feb 16 at 2015 2:59 AM

2015-02-16T02:59:06-05:00

Interesting, but I would say no. I was in the Army from 80 - 13, and we had women in my branch since I came in; heck the Commander of Ft. Leonard Wood in 1980 was MG Mary Clark. This is not about integrating women into the Army... it is about should we integrate them into direct combat roles or MOSs. The current issue is should women be allowed in all direct combat roles. Even though African Americans were initially only considered for and used in support roles, I don't see this as the same. The issue with African Americans was were they smart enough or capable, which in hindsight seems ludicrous; clearly they were and are. But, that was the world at the time. Thank goodness the truth came out. We integrated women into the Army long ago. The issue of what women can do, should do, want to do, etc. is all about men vs. women, and has nothing to do with the issues surrounding the desegregation of the Army. The issue with women is physiological as well as psychological. There are definitely some similarities though...

Response by SGT Jim Z. made Feb 16 at 2015 7:09 AM

2015-02-16T07:09:23-05:00

This is a very hotly debated topic and though there is "segregation" within the combat arms fields it is not he same as a racial segregation. I think this move is more of a political move but I do see where this has added value. I also see it having it's "landmines" and I think we all know what those are or at least we can think of some. The combat arms career fields will not be for every female soldier just like it is not for every male soldier.

I am refreshed that this topic is being debated and everyone who has made an argument for and against has done it professionally.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Feb 16 at 2015 7:31 AM

2015-02-16T07:31:37-05:00

There are Philosophical comparisons, and there are Functional comparisons.

Sure, we can make this is as a philosophical comparison. But we can do the same with DADT. What we cannot do, is make this as a Functional comparison.

Ignore the fact that we are talking about "people" for a moment. Let's work under the assumption we are talking about two similar "machines." Pieces of equipment. One piece of equipment (on average) is better suited for some roles than the other. That's really what the debate is about. That doesn't say the other piece isn't also good for other roles, just that the requirements of a specific role, require a specific piece of machinery.

As we go through the MOS, the vast majority can be filled by either gender. Even the Combat Arms MOS. However it's a return on investment question. The cost tends to be much higher on some of the physical based MOS, so it just doesn't make sense. Why break a tool, when they would be better suited somewhere else?

On the Marine Corps side, every enlisted Marine goes through Marine Combat Training at the School of Infantry, so we can call ourselves Riflemen (Not Infantrymen), men & women alike. We've had 4~ women make it through Infantry Training Battalion as well. They're test bedding women in Infantry Officers Course, without success, however everyone still goes through The Basic School.

So it would be disingenuous to say women can't cut it. We've got over a dozen years showing exactly how women can cut it "to a degree." It's just a case of finding out exactly where that line is.

Everyone that is fighting this, yelling about this, forgets one simple fact. Congress writes the checks. They make decisions. They have the Constitutional obligation to maintain a Navy & raise an Army. The President may command, but Congress "controls" the military in a very real fashion. Integration is coming, like a boulder down a hill. It may be slowed, but it won't be stopped.

Response by SPC Anthony Davis made Feb 16 at 2015 10:15 AM

2015-02-16T10:15:45-05:00

I support every woman that wants a combat MOS, sorry to kill your boys club. During my enlistment I didn't care who had my 6 I was just grateful for them being there. If she can pass the training then let it be , and be happy you have another family member on your six. Separating brothers and sisters in arms is out dated.

Response by SGT Alicia Brenneis made Feb 16 at 2015 11:06 AM

2015-02-16T11:06:51-05:00

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/13/130125-women-combat-world-australia-israel-canada-norway/

Here is a link that talks about women who are already intergraded into combat roles in other countries. The results are interesting and might help put some of the fears to rest. Some of the countries said it took 5 years before things smoothed out but was a benefit in the long run.

8 Other Nations That Send Women to Combat

As the United States prepares to officially send women into combat, it is studying the experiences of foreign militaries. So how have they fared with women on the front lines?

Response by 2LT David Phillips made Feb 16 at 2015 11:18 AM

2015-02-16T11:18:01-05:00

This is a very touchy topic. It is un-wise and un-fair for race and gender to be on equal footing in the military. Race does not have any physiological implications. All can run, jump, shoot, lift and carry, to a certain level - to wit, they are combat effective. The differences between males and females is scientifically proven to have a predictable difference across a broad spectrum of combat arms jobs. Maybe 1 in 10 men can effectively hump a crew served weapon into combat. However 1 in 1000 women can perform the same job, at the same level as 1 in 10 men. If you apply affirmative action, to that branch and tell them to perform those missions, well... You can fill in the blanks. Relaxing standards, and providing "breaks" based on gender, will not meet mission ready requirements unless you find away to genetically alter a womans' physiology. That's the facts. No offense her. Its the same reason someone under 6ft tall, can't succeed in the NBA. Nothing against short people...

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 18 at 2015 8:18 AM

2015-02-18T08:18:36-05:00

I am surprised and somewhat disappointed that this thread has seemed to died off. I thought it would bring really thought provoking discussion.

Have a great day everyone. :)

Response by SPC Anthony Davis made Mar 11 at 2015 8:23 PM

2015-03-11T20:23:48-04:00

I believe they can do the job, we need to stop thinking like they did in the past and grow up. Women have proved over the years they can do what a man can do. So stop treating them like a fragile doll and you'll see they can do the job 100%.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 11 at 2015 5:27 PM

2015-04-11T17:27:52-04:00

Comparing ethnicity and gender are similar and different. WWII allowed for integration of minorities, I believe the main issue was the color of the skin, not ability. Gender integration is based or should be based on the ability of women to do the job based on body type, however, we must have standards and uphold them. I see nothing wrong with women in combat arms as long as they meet the standards. In the end we all bleed red.

Response by LTC(P) Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 11 at 2015 6:16 PM

2015-04-11T18:16:55-04:00

To the original question posed by the title of this post, no. We should not compare integration of women into combat arms to segregation. The comparison involves the logical fallacy of false analogy. This is a very effective tactic when trying to sway people to one's position, but it is not a rational argument. There are, admittedly, some similarities in that some of the reasons for the traditional ban are based on sexism. However, it is also based on a realization that, biologically, men and women are physically and physiologically different, and these difference lead to legitimate questions as to whether or not females are physically capable of serving in these roles. It is not sexist to look at the scientific facts regarding men and women and conclude that 1) they are different (fact), 2) these unique jobs require a higher level of endurance, physical fitness and strength than even most men are capable of (fact) and therefore 3) allowing women into these roles may be detrimental to themselves and those they serve with. You may not agree with the conclusion (it may be false), but it is not based on sexism, but on observable facts.

Segregation was based on racism which made assumptions about African Americans and was not based on facts at all, but rather myths, fear and nonscientific assumptions. These have been proven false and segregation was eventually defeated. While racism still exists, the myth of African Americans being somehow innately different or inferior to whites has been decidedly proven to be false. A one to one comparison between the ban on women from combat arms to segregation does not add to the conversation, because it ignores the real, provable differences between men and women. It is not a rational argument, but rather a tactic used to try to shame opponents into silence. Advocates of integration would do well to drop this line of argumentation and focus on showing that though men and women are different (which is unquestionable), there are women who can meet the high physical demands of combat arms professions and therefore should be allowed to serve in these roles.

The question then is: do the real, substantive differences between males and females preclude them from serving in Combat Arms? Since integration is inevitable, I believe the military needs to rigidly demand that the higher male standard be met and no aspect of training be altered to accommodate female candidates (In fact, I'd like to see the female PT standard scrapped across the board). Do not lower the bar. If women want to serve in these roles they need to rise to meet the standard.

I personally witnessed females being quietly pushed through Drill Sergeant School when I went in the 90's and was thoroughly disgusted. Not only is it dishonest, but it was a slap in the face of all the females who can and do meet the standards for DSS. I would hate to see this kind of craven, politically motivated tactic be used to integrate women into Combat Arms. I hope our leaders have enough backbone to stand up to Congress and higher level brass and draw the line in the sand.